Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Posturing?

harneloot
Bringslite
It is ridiculous to invade, expect that territory then to be respected as yours by those you invade, and further expect to paint the invaded as the wrongful party when they begin conflict to try and get YOU "the invader" to leave the invaded area.

You don't get to do things like invade people and then call their reactions to that the reason that you invaded, or the reason that you are justified. The server is not quite that stupid, but nice try.

There was no invasion. The *group* of associated settlements and players known as HRC that had disavowed territory claims for months finally made a large claim of hexes. Brighthaven disagreed with the claim for whatever reason and made a counter claim. So we each disagree with the other's claim. There is apparently little agreement on the validity of either groups claim or the various reasons they were made or how negotiations over the contested claim progressed. Objectively, neither claim has any more validity than the other. They had a few holdings in the area, we had a tavern. Both had been there for quite a while. Now there are more holdings there. The closest settlement to the contested area is an NPC settlement. The next closest settlements are 4 or 5 hexes away. Sounds like a territory control game being played by groups of opposing players to me.
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
Drogon
Stilachio Thrax
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Drogon
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Drogon
In my opinion your version or perception of the way things happened is incorrect.
Apparently we have something in common. I have no idea how we are supposed to get past you saying our position is one we don't hold, or that we said things we never said.

So you do not deny that Jokken called everyone on the server "Morons" for making previous territorial claims?

I don't recall if he was referring to everyone on the server, but he definitely did say some people were acting like morons. I do not dispute that at all.

At times, I have referred to people on the server as far worse smile If BHA wants to play the game of using negative past comments unrelated to current events as ammunition, they really need to reread virtually every post their members made in the lead up to, duration of, and aftermath of the Forever War. They hardly did themselves any credit. I was no fan of EoX, but some of the comments made crossed- really flung themselves over- the line.

I agree with you in principal with the exception that this comment is/was directly related to current events.
HpoD - "I have, however, sat and watched as others took things more personally (on both sides) and became zealots, charging forward on a shining white horse into a pile of shit. Forum Warriors at their peak, striding the battlefield knee deep in the bloody, broken arguments of their adversaries before the burning village of their credibility….Chill guys. "
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I don't recall if he was referring to everyone on the server, but he definitely did say some people were acting like morons. I do not dispute that at all.
You forgot "bone-headed." I'm pretty sure he said that, too. Or maybe it was something else like that.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Decius
Hobson Fiffledown
Now, now, now. With the whole down there attacking players bit, has no one has really put together anything in common with the characters that have been attacked? Most characters just go down in the journal. Loves me my notes…

Our land was invaded and occupied. Leaders of the invading settlements, members of any primary/founding company of those invading settlements, and members of the occupying companies all seem like fair targets for a defender taking action against an aggressor. Find me a (recent) target outside of those groups and I will apologize. smile

Any suggested timeline which puts Hobson in the SE for anything other than retaliation against an invasion and occupation is incorrect.
Still trying to untangle who is speaking for the HRC and who is just throwing their two coppers in the pile: is this the consensus of the HRC, or only representative of one person's observation?
Ravenlute
Decius
Still trying to untangle who is speaking for the HRC and who is just throwing their two coppers in the pile: is this the consensus of the HRC, or only representative of one person's observation?

That's the kicker isn't it? smile
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Bringslite
harneloot
Bringslite
It is ridiculous to invade, expect that territory then to be respected as yours by those you invade, and further expect to paint the invaded as the wrongful party when they begin conflict to try and get YOU "the invader" to leave the invaded area.

You don't get to do things like invade people and then call their reactions to that the reason that you invaded, or the reason that you are justified. The server is not quite that stupid, but nice try.

There was no invasion. The *group* of associated settlements and players known as HRC that had disavowed territory claims for months finally made a large claim of hexes. Brighthaven disagreed with the claim for whatever reason and made a counter claim. So we each disagree with the other's claim. There is apparently little agreement on the validity of either groups claim or the various reasons they were made or how negotiations over the contested claim progressed. Objectively, neither claim has any more validity than the other. They had a few holdings in the area, we had a tavern. Both had been there for quite a while. Now there are more holdings there. The closest settlement to the contested area is an NPC settlement. The next closest settlements are 4 or 5 hexes away. Sounds like a territory control game being played by groups of opposing players to me.

If you choose to role that way, that is your choice. The server pressured The HRC to lay "legitimate claims" to the areas that they wanted to preserve for the use of their players and anyone else that they decided to let access them without needing drama.

That "declaration" is one of or possibly the most permissive on the server and instead of acknowledging it, since The BHA was a principle in pressuring for it, The BHA blunders in. Acting just like a "big group"(Midnight's Blob) that is so large that goodness, fairness, common sense, and wisdom is beyond it's ability to master any more.

The sad thing is, none of this was necessary, and many of us are a bit disappointed by these actions. If you want to make war, make war! Please don't try and throw out so many justifications, excuses, and ridiculous angles and expect us to nod and say "Well look at these new reasons, clearly The BHA is justified to do this and still be Good Guys"
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Eyraphel Teralyn
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I didn't see this earlier, or I'd have responded sooner.

[snipped]

Indeed, I have no misconceptions about your expectations. You reaffirm what I stated in my post: that you expect foreign states to enforce their own laws, even against citizens of HRC settlements. Similarly, I fully expect you currently wouldn't take kindly to me if I were passing through.

And even if you don't expect anyone else to control their citizens, most attempt to out of respect for their neighbors. You note that you accept without argument your death when Dreggo caught you in an AL hex you knew you shouldn't be in. But do you have no respect for AL that you'd go there anyway? Must you push the boundary just to see if there is, in fact, a punishment?

I'm being harsher in these questions for rhetorical purposes, but it does underline some fundamental misunderstanding between us. Why should anyone attempt agreements with "HRC" when it seems clear that there are no internal checks for the behavior of its members? What makes HRC any more politically relevant than Bob's Band of Bandits (of hypothetically similar size and settlement ownership)?

Again, forgive any unintended connotation to my tone, but the questions aren't merely rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested and I acknowledge my own confusion.
Stilachio Thrax
Bringslite
harneloot
Bringslite
It is ridiculous to invade, expect that territory then to be respected as yours by those you invade, and further expect to paint the invaded as the wrongful party when they begin conflict to try and get YOU "the invader" to leave the invaded area.

You don't get to do things like invade people and then call their reactions to that the reason that you invaded, or the reason that you are justified. The server is not quite that stupid, but nice try.

There was no invasion. The *group* of associated settlements and players known as HRC that had disavowed territory claims for months finally made a large claim of hexes. Brighthaven disagreed with the claim for whatever reason and made a counter claim. So we each disagree with the other's claim. There is apparently little agreement on the validity of either groups claim or the various reasons they were made or how negotiations over the contested claim progressed. Objectively, neither claim has any more validity than the other. They had a few holdings in the area, we had a tavern. Both had been there for quite a while. Now there are more holdings there. The closest settlement to the contested area is an NPC settlement. The next closest settlements are 4 or 5 hexes away. Sounds like a territory control game being played by groups of opposing players to me.

If you choose to role that way, that is your choice. The server pressured The HRC to lay "legitimate claims" to the areas that they wanted to preserve for the use of their players and anyone else that they decided to let access them without needing drama.

That "declaration" is one of or possibly the most permissive on the server and instead of acknowledging it, since The BHA was a principle in pressuring for it, The BHA blunders in. Acting just like a "big group"(Midnight's Blob) that is so large that goodness, fairness, common sense, and wisdom is beyond it's ability to master any more.

The sad thing is, none of this was necessary, and many of us are a bit disappointed by these actions. If you want to make war, make war! Please don't try and throw out so many justifications, excuses, and ridiculous angles and expect us to nod and say "Well look at these new reasons, clearly The BHA is justified to do this and still be Good Guys"

+1
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Jokken
Bringslite
Drogon
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Drogon
In my opinion your version or perception of the way things happened is incorrect.
Apparently we have something in common. I have no idea how we are supposed to get past you saying our position is one we don't hold, or that we said things we never said.

So you do not deny that Jokken called everyone on the server "Morons" for making previous territorial claims?

You know, if he did call us all Morons, it makes me giggle. We certainly act like Morons sometimes. If it is because we are drawing lines on the map, I can see why he would say that. The HRC has always been against that and while both Jokken and I know the reasons for both of us to disagree about it, we probably both shake our heads at the folly of the other guy's philosophy.

It doesn't wound me to read that.

For the record, I did, and still feel that the act of drawing colored shapes onto a map and expecting others with whom you have no social history to respect those claims is a moronic act. Therefore, those with those expectations I consider morons by proxy. I have been a hugely vocal advocate among my cadre for not doing such things. However, given the recent political pressure and declaration of nearby hexes within our lands as "unclaimed," I relented and supported the will of the HRC to make an official territory claim.

If you can stand on a soapbox and proclaim that in your heart you do not feel that the Bulwark Hills is the home of the HRC, while keeping strait face, I have to give you props for it, but you're wrong.
Go West for freedom and adventure! Join the free soil settlers of High Road. Be a positive and constructive force for freedom in the Bulwark Hills. www.coalroad.com/hrc
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Eyraphel Teralyn
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I didn't see this earlier, or I'd have responded sooner.

[snipped]

Indeed, I have no misconceptions about your expectations. You reaffirm what I stated in my post: that you expect foreign states to enforce their own laws, even against citizens of HRC settlements. Similarly, I fully expect you currently wouldn't take kindly to me if I were passing through.

And even if you don't expect anyone else to control their citizens, most attempt to out of respect for their neighbors. You note that you accept without argument your death when Dreggo caught you in an AL hex you knew you shouldn't be in. But do you have no respect for AL that you'd go there anyway? Must you push the boundary just to see if there is, in fact, a punishment?

I'm being harsher in these questions for rhetorical purposes, but it does underline some fundamental misunderstanding between us. Why should anyone attempt agreements with "HRC" when it seems clear that there are no internal checks for the behavior of its members? What makes HRC any more politically relevant than Bob's Band of Bandits (of hypothetically similar size and settlement ownership)?

Again, forgive any unintended connotation to my tone, but the questions aren't merely rhetorical. I'm genuinely interested and I acknowledge my own confusion.
I don't think any of us require controlling by our leadership. The HRC has all kinds of agreements and deals, and have lived up to every one of them, including one with the (now) Dominion that required an enormous level of personal juggling and coddling and could have fallen apart several times, but which I think resulted in a strengthening of our relationship. We have had a peaceful and cooperative relationship with many groups for a long time, with no issues of trust on either side, some of them since the day the game started.

As for my adventures in the Aeonian league, I had a disagreement with them over a previous deal, and we had never agreed to their borders in the first place, feeling they were overly presumptive. I wasn't there at random but specifically in retribution at the way the deal ended along with some compounding personal issues. Jokken had no way of knowing what I was about, so to say that he should have exerted control over me is simply not reasonable.

I have not hunted or harvested in the Brighthaven area since it became clear they didn't want us there months ago, despite us never excluding them from our area until this incident. if I go there now, Jokken has no way of knowing where I am and what I am doing. If he decides there is political value in it, he can ask me not to do it and I will obey or not. he still won't know what I'm doing.

The biggest issue at the moment is that the Brighthaven leadership likes to throw out a bunch of justifications for what they do and see what sticks, then retract the others and pretend it wasn't what they meant. They are using the size of their membership to bully others, while pretending at every step that they are not. When they don't get their way, they keep coming up with new reasons why they should, including saying that because Jokken isn't interested in giving orders he knows won't be obeyed, he's not really a leader and we're not really a political entity. It's simply not the case. We are not the kind of political entity that some people want us to be, but I think we give our elected leader as much respect as anyone in the BHA (Or Brighthaven, because I'm not certain what he's leader of) offers Drogon.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post